Tag Archives: Questions

The Cornell University Law School defines “procedural due process” as follows:

“Principle required by the Constitution that when the state or federal government acts in such a way that denies a citizen of a life, liberty, or property interest, the person must first be given notice and the opportunity to be heard.”

Thus, procedural due process consists of two elements:

1) Notice; and

2) Opportunity to be heard.

The “opportunity to be heard” is typically a hearing where you will be found guilty about 98% of the time. Therefore, most reasonable people don’t want the “opportunity to be heard” because it is typically an “opportunity to be sentenced”.

I believe that “opportunity” can be avoided by controlling the notice. I.e., unless you consent to receive only an incomplete notice, the gov-co can’t take you to the “opportunity to be heard [sentenced]” until they’ve give you full and complete notice.

Strangely, my research implies that the notice recipient, rather than the notice sender, controls the express content of every notice. Whenever you receive a notice, you control whether or not that notice is sufficient to allow the sender to take you to the “opportunity to be heard [sentenced]”.

Here’s a video of some legal advice from an attorney who talks faster than I do.

Generally speaking, I’d say this attorney’s advice is solid.

But I have some doubts . . . or at least some questions. If you’ve read my hypothesis concerning Notice, then you know I that I believe the proper to response to any governmental Notice is not: 1) to make statements; or 2) to go silent–but instead, 3) to ask questions.

I’m therefore inclined to suspect that every interaction initiated by a police officer begins with some sort of “notice”. That notice may be the emergency lights on top of the cop car. It may be the officer’s uniform, or the fringed flag on his shoulder. It might be a statement as simple as “I’d like to talk to you,” or “I’d like to ask you a few questions.”

I agree with the attorney in this video that you must not make statements to the police. However, without any supporting evidence, I still have some doubt whether your best choice is to go silent.

According to an IRS website, there are a number of publications that include the term “Federal Income Tax” and/or “federal income tax”.

What does the phrase “Federal Income Tax” mean? I expect that, if asked, most people would agree that the phrase refers to a “Tax” on all “Income” that’s enforced by the “Federal” (Government).

But is it possible that “Federal Income Tax” instead refers to a “Tax” that only applies to “Federal Income”? If so, what is “Federal Income” and who receives it and is therefore subject to the “Tax”?

I’m not betting that any of this speculation is true, but if there were a “Tax” on “Federal Income,” might that “Tax” only apply to whatever “Income” is received as a Federal Employee? If you weren’t a “federal employee,” could you be liable for a tax on “Federal Income”

Given just three words (“Federal Income Tax”) we can find at least three potential meanings.

“It might be to our advantage to listen carefully to lawyers in courtroom proceedings. I have reviewed the videos of the OJ Simpson trial and observed the following. One day judge Ito asked the question ” Is the defendant in the courtroom”? Johnnie Cocoran, the attorney replied with honor by asking the following question: From the recorders Log- “What is the nature of the PERSON or individual that you seek ?” Everyone knew that OJ was not in the courtroom at the time and the question was not brought up again. Could the answer lie in the understanding of the word “nature”?

Title 18 United States Code (USC) Section 6001 (“Definitions”) begins with the phase “As used in this chapter”. That phrase tells us that the four definitions found at 18 USC 6001 are only certain to apply in this chapter (Chapter 601; “Witness Immunity”) but might not apply in any other Chapters in the USC.

The USC has 50 Titles. If we assume that each of the other 49 Titles also has 601 “Chapters,” then there may be over 30,000 “chapters” in the entire USC. In theory, then, there could be 30,000 unique definitions (one or each Chapter in the USC) for each of the four terms defined at 18 USC 6001.

Of course, it’s virtually impossible that any word or phrase used by Congress could have 30,000 separate definitions. Nevertheless, many word or phrases used by Congress do have multiple definitions. More, these multiple definitions are often contrived by Congress to have meanings that, for ordinary Americans, are not only unknown and unimagined but are virtually incomprehensible.

This multiplicity of definitions goes to the heart of the following inquiry as to our right to ask to know the definitions of each of the words used in laws, instruments or testimony that are relied upon in our court cases and legal relations.